And justice for all...

“An unjust law, is no law at all.” - Martin Luther

Good for you Texas! As the state’s ban on same-sex marriage heads out the door, make sure that you slam the door on it’s ass.

*“Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration - it is a constitutional mandate. Consequently, equal protection is at the heart of our legal system and is essential for the existence of a free society.”

One more state rules against such bans on marriage. Not gay marriage; not same-sex marriage; not like-gendered marriage. Marriage. The formal, state-sanctioned partnership between two consenting adults. Marriage being a contract between two people; a contract that need not depend on the gender of the parties involved.

*“In this case, Defendants argue the right to marry does not include the right to same-sex marriage. That is, Defendants claim this is a ‘definitional’ issue, in that Plaintiffs are seeking recognition of a ‘new right to same-sex marriage’ as opposed to the existing ‘right to marry’. This Court finds this argument fails, as the Supreme Court did not adopt this line of reasoning in the analogous case of Loving v. Virginia. Instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held that individuals could not be restricted from exercising their ‘existing’ right to marry on account of their chosen partner. That is, an interracial marriage was considered to be a subset of ‘marriage’, in the same way that same-sex marriage is included within the fundamental right to marry.”

In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed the ban on same-sex marriage, and two years later, an overwhelming majority - 76% of voters - amended the Texas Constitution to include this ban. But a law passed by legislation and/or by the voters of a state must still comply with the United States Constitution. If said law does not comply, that law will always be overturned; it’s just a matter of time.

Texas passed this law on the specious basis of “protecting traditional marriage” between a “one man and one woman”. I’ve always scoffed at the notion of “traditional” marriage. Throughout human history, traditional marriage has been between one man and multiple wives, some of them being children. You don’t see many people scrambling to defend that tradition, do you? Regardless, the law is intended to preserve rights and not traditions. In many marriages, philandering and spousal abuse are traditional as well…

*“Defendants’ mention that Texas ‘public policy’ allows the state to deny recognition to validate out-of-state marriages, but fail to articulate what that ‘public policy’ is. Assuming Defendants’ public policy arguments refers to preserving Texas’ definition of traditional marriage, the Court finds that tradition alone cannot justify the infringement on individual liberties.”

But, in the tradition of the Alamo (and Texans do love their traditions), the state intends to fight to the death. The last man standing will be the presumptive new governor, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Having already appealed the decision to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court, Abbott believes that the decision will be overturned by the appellate court. The 5th Circuit handles cases for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, so there is a chance - albeit slight - that the court may overturn the decision. That said, it will wind it’s way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and based on previous precedents set by the Court, including those set by the Roberts Court under United States v. Windsor, the ultimate outcome will be… Marriage. No qualifier; simply marriage.

*“Today’s Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution.”

The GOP in Texas is apoplectic. With an election right around the corner, and their great legal minds, the reactions have been lockstep, out of touch, and unclear on how the U.S. Constitution actually works.

“Unelected judges”, said Senator Ted Cruz, “should not be substituting their own views for the reasoned judgments of the citizens of Texas, who adopted our marriage law directly by referendum. The court’s decision undermines the institution of marriage, and I applaud Attorney General Abbott’s decision to appeal this ruling”

Except Mr. Cruz, as a former Solicitor General of Texas, you know damn well that this is exactly why the courts exist, and that it is their entire function. They judge, citizens don’t.

“The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn’t be achieved at the ballot box”, said Governor Rick Perry, “We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state.”

Does that sound like Governor George Wallace, or is it me?

The state’s GOP donors are even more freaked out and frantic. “The voices and values of ordinary citizens,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, “are being trampled by judges determined to impose profound social change that affects citizens in the deepest and most fundamental ways.”

Ordinary citizens? Does that make our gay citizens extraordinary?

“This hollow victory and clear attack on morality and the rule of law will not stand in Texas.” President of Texas Values Jonathan Saenz commented, “This is just the beginning of an epic battle that will ultimately win in the name of the only true and lawful definition of marriage - one man, one woman.”

Epic battle, like the Alamo. Somebody should remind Saenz that Texans were routed at the Alamo, with no survivors. Epic battle indeed.

There are still two related cases making their way through the federal courts in Texas. These may be halted until the 5th Circuit Court can review yesterday’s decision. In one case, the Texas Supreme Court is considering whether same-sex couples, legally married in other states, can be divorced in the state of Texas. In order to grant a divorce, the state would have to recognize the marriages as valid, which they have not done, as of yet. After yesterday’s decision however, Texas may indeed have their decision made for them.

This case will definitely make it’s way to the Supreme Court.

In his angry dissenting opinion in Windsor v. United States, Justice Scalia was prescient in his assertion that the Court had opened a can of worms, leading state courts to overturn previous legislation banning same-sex marriages. Good for him and his clairvoyance. I can’t wait to read his dissent when the Court bans this type of discriminatory and prejudicial abuse altogether.

Five other bans have been overturned by federal courts on the question of gay marriage, exemplifying the domino effect that Justice Scalia prophesied. Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Ohio have all had bans overturned as unconstitutional, while cases in 20 other states are making their way through the courts. Meanwhile, seventeen states already allow marriage equality.

This will certainly be revisited by the Supremes. Judge Scalia’s heart might not take it. We may have a vacancy on the Court before this is over. Then again, we may not have to worry about his heart, as it seems to be made of stone. Maybe instead it will be his head that explodes.

*Excerpts from the court decision of Orlando Garcia.

Hate speech

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I have become more and more perplexed by the stupidity expressed by the people of my country and people of the world at large. I come from a nation that was formed under the principles of the Age of Enlightenment. A nation that aspired to be thoughtful, informed, and involved in making life a more humane and beneficial existence than it had ever been before, for all. Well,… so much for that idea…

Today, our stupidity goes far beyond simple cognitive dissonance. Today, we are mean, and filled with hate and spite for that which resembles actual truth. We dismiss truth out of hand when it doesn’t further our personal agendas or when it contradicts our rhetorical narratives.

People would like to believe that the truth is somehow “subjective”. Some truths may correctly be described as a matter of personal perspective, while others are simply objective truths supported by reams of evidence and confirming data. These are the truths that are of utmost importance.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. These are not fungible concepts.

This is illustrated by our lack of understanding of such concepts as "hate speech". We would define hate speech as: “communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group.” I find this definition lacking, and all too egocentric, individualistic, and politically correct.

If you commit a gay-bashing, you commit an act of violence, motivated by fear and hate. If you use the word “faggot” while doing so, this is deemed “hate speech” and you have thereby committed the additional offense of a hate crime. The way I see it, if a deaf mute commit’s a gay-bashing, he has already committed a hate crime, without having to say a word. The same would apply to racial attacks and abuse against women.

I think we need to come to a new consensus on what the phrase “hate speech” should really signify. Hate speech should signify statements that further and encourage ignorance and stupidity, as these are the lowest forms of hate that there is. Speech that advocates stupidity and ignorance, broadcasts hate and contempt on a grand scale. The grander the scale, the harsher the “hate speech”.

I am a strong defender of the Freedom of Speech as described in the Constitution of the United States. I believe that everyone has the right to say and believe what they want. But I also believe that with this freedom and power comes great responsibility.

We should be held responsible for the things we say. Not so much for the words we use, or whom they may offend, but what may result from the speech that we choose. The ideas that our words convey. Furthermore, we should be held accountable for the effect that those things have on our society at large. And if our speech degrades the function of our society, then that speech is corrosive and destructive.

It is “hate speech”, plain and simple.

Our school systems and media are largely to blame for our stupidity, and enable this "hate speech" to run rampant in the public sphere. Our schools do not teach the discipline of thought, nor encourage the search for truth. They all too often fear the “oppression” of student ideas, regardless of their veracity (or lack thereof) or basis in reality. Political correctness run amok, disarming the teacher from the ability to enlighten and educate the child as an appeasement to the child’s family and it’s “parental authority”.

So when the child says that black people are inferior to white people - because that is what their mommy and daddy have taught them - teachers are forced to respect their “opinion” even though their opinion is patently false. The student might be lectured on the error of that reasoning, but they are not admonished for their “opinion”; only counseled on how it may be perceived by others.

No. False opinion should be nipped in the bud. It is not truth, it is not thoughtful or informed, it is simply ignorant, stupid, and wrong. And it should not be “respected” as a differing view of reality. It should be squelched, admonished, reprimanded, and punished. And so should the child.

The media perpetuates this type of “reasoning” (a word I use with knowledge that it is anything but in this circumstance). News agencies today provide a contrived narrative on everything - from abortion to zoology - and apply the false equivalencies of “two sides to every story”. The fair and balanced approach. Life is not fair and balanced, and likewise, our journalistic purveyors should not be either. They should be honest.

A discussion on the utility of vaccinations is held between a virology expert, and a housewife who says her child’s autism is caused by the smallpox vaccine. We have the expert scientist on one side talking about biology, and we have a housewife talking about something she misread six years ago in Redbook.

This discussion gets the viewing audience thinking. They begin to weigh the pros and cons of the “debate” and the “controversy” and start forming their own judgments based on the “arguments”. They begin making a comparison not of apples to apples, not even of apples to oranges… No; they instead compare apples to rocks. And the stupidity spreads like an untreated virus, vectoring into the public as a “viable opinion”.

It is the spread of this disease that needs to be deemed as “hate speech”. We should look upon lies, ignorance, and stupidity as detrimental to our health as a nation - and the world - and not validate them with the trite excuse of: “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion”. People’s opinions carry no weight when they are empty. As Aldous Huxley said: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”.

I agree that opinions matter. I am an opinionated son-of-a-bitch. But the difference between an informed opinion, and the conditioned opinion is light years apart. If your own opinion is informed, even if offensive (which mine often are), it still has standing as a legitimate point of view. But when your opinion is based on imaginary and deceitful “information”, disregarding facts, data, and evidence to the contrary, it is based on fear, hate, and lies. This is the weakest of foundations, and an idea is only as strong as the foundation it is built upon.

When Creationists seek to validate their “science” as an alternative to evolution, they should be rebuked, with extreme prejudice. It is no more a science than masturbation is. Creationism gets you to where you want to be, but takes no real effort to do so, and miraculously leaves your hands clean with no clean up required.

If Creationism wants to debate the science of creation, their fight is with astronomers, not evolutionary biologists. Astronomers study the beginnings of the universe and how life developed from the stardust that it is made of. The Big Bang Theory is the science of the stars and how creation came to pass; not the study of flora and fauna.

But the idea that their theology is a “science” at all is a hateful attack on human knowledge, and should be labeled as hate speech.

When people discuss global climate change, it is appropriate to debate the plausible causes and effects of climate change, and how it may affect life on Earth as we know it. Ask what impact does man have versus nature, and how do we mitigate the likely effects of rising sea levels and mass extinctions of species.

But people who claim that it is a hoax, or that it is some grand conspiracy perpetrated by environmentalists, is just another hateful attack on reality - an observable phenomenon - and should be labeled as hate speech.

When a person wants to discuss the differing cultures of whites versus blacks or those of differing nationalities, or the differences between women and men, or variances in human sexuality, these are very legitimate areas of debate.

But when a person states that white people are genetically superior to all others, or that women cannot perform with the mental acuity of men, or that homosexuals are psychologically disturbed, well then this perpetuates fear, hate, and ignorance. This is a hateful attack on the fundamental realities of the human condition, and should be labeled as hate speech.

When the left and right debate policies, and political discourse is a game of “he said, she said”, this is the normal function of civil debate. Arguing over nuance and vision should be encouraged and even applauded, as it exhibits strength of intellect and character, two vital aspects of the ideals that our country was built upon, and ideals that are - and should be - emulated around the world.

But when they start bandying words about such as “Nazi”, and “Socialism”, and “oppression”, well then the conversation has degraded to fearful, hateful, and idiotic. Debate is one thing, but charges of mislabeled and uninformed “Communist conspiracies” and other fallacies should be labeled hate speech.

Many things are subjective, and can take on different meanings depending on the observer’s individual point of view. The only universal truth is change.

But when something is demonstrably false, and spread as a truism, it needs to be confronted, and the speaker should be publicly shamed and humiliated.

I am not even averse to the idea of making it punishable as a criminal offense, because a lie told often enough takes on the perception of truth. I know that this could be considered a parallel to “thought crime”, but it is not. You are still allowed to “think” as you see fit. But keep it to yourself. If you spread this sort of “hate speech”, you are committing a hate crime. A crime against humanity.

We all know that the Earth is not flat, and we must not allow others to believe that it is.

So, speech said during the commission of a crime - racists, homophobic, or sexist - should not be considered criminal; just another piece of evidence that would go to the motive of the crime. Criminal acts caused by fear and hate are adjudicated based upon their severity and motive.

But speech that spreads falsehoods, lies, and stupidity should be silenced, and discredited, if not criminally sanctioned. Because it does not further discourse. It does not inform. It does not provide insight or enable awareness.

It only spreads hate.

And that is hate speech.